Venice Get API Key Details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds valuable context beyond them: the response does not reveal the full key secret, ADMIN auth is required, and x402 auth is rejected — all non-obvious operational facts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return contents before the auth caveats. No wasted words; each sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only single-key lookup, the description covers scope, returned data types, secret non-disclosure, and auth requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile and schema covering the parameter, this is nearly complete; only explicit alternative routing is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'id' param is fully documented as 'API-key ID, not the key secret.' The description restates this same distinction rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (metadata, usage, balances, rate-limit details) scoped to one API-key ID. The singular 'one API-key ID' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling venice_list_api_keys, and the enumeration of returned data types makes the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear usage context via auth constraints: ADMIN API key required, inference keys cannot call it, and x402 wallet auth is not accepted. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use venice_list_api_keys to enumerate all keys'), so routing is implied by the singular scope rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.